Interview Schedule

Within each interview opening I provided a brief introduction to my research and provided some detail regarding my own history, to demonstrate my interest in the subject. The disclosure of a small level of personal detail provided a useful opener in recognising the surprise of some interviewees at being interviewed by a ‘mature’ student whilst also being able to clarify that I had no connection with the organisation. This also helped to open up conversation and put interviewees at ease in sharing their own experiences. I remained mindful of not influencing or biasing interviewees responses by imposing definitions of career, or assumptions as to experiences, including the occasion and frequency of change.

The interview schedule consisted of two key segments. Within the first, interviewees were invited to share their career story, highlighting the experiences and changes which they considered to be significant with minimal prompting from myself as interviewer for further explanation or clarification as necessary. The term ‘career’ was employed loosely with interviewees invited to share their career or work experience history, not directed to a specific starting point but invited to start where they chose. In

so doing interviewees are afforded the flexibility to take ownership of the interview (Nelson 2010). The majority started from the point of leaving higher education but often then reflected further back upon early aspirations and influences. A small number started with their entry into Baycastle Trust but subsequently returned to earlier experiences to demonstrate their contribution to later choices and opportunities. In granting such freedom, I sought to extract personal interpretations of career and ensure the expression of an ‘authentic’ voice (Atkinson, 1998:74). Furthermore, Nelson (2010) reflects upon how interviewees may delay narrating emotionally sensitive events until rapport has been successfully developed with the interviewer and this was evidenced within the course of my interviews as interviewees passed over or offered simple explanations for some experiences, before returning later in the interview to provide in- depth or alternate explanations. Typically, this initial segment occupied over half of the total interview time but frequently addressed a number of later questions and appeared to place the interviewees at ease as they narrated through their experiences.

The second segment of the interview followed a semi-structured format, enabling deeper exploration of key areas including some of the changes they had experienced, the personal significance of careering within this and exploration of factors which influenced or impacted upon this. As themes emerged within earlier interviews, such as the narration of key people within their careering, additional questions were incorporated within this section to explore these themes further. The adoption of a semi- structured format ensured the coverage of key points whilst affording adaptability and flexibility to follow the natural course of the conversation and explore relevant information as it presented itself (Kvale, 2009). The primary objective of this section was to explore further the experiences of change highlighted within the initial section but were not previously developed as this would impact upon the organic flow of the narrative. This included questions such as; what other events have occurred over this timeline which may have directly or indirectly impacted upon your career or work history?, why would you describe these as significant or important? Please can you tell me more about these? During this section the timeline drafted within the first section (Section 5.4.6) was invaluable in prompting discussion around particular changes and events that had been referenced previously. This section also focused upon the personal meaning and significance of career, for example; “What does career mean to you?”, and “How have you shaped your own career?”. In the final stages of the interview

interviewees were provided the opportunity to contribute anything else which they would like to add. This sometimes led to revisiting earlier parts of the discussion or commenting in more detail on the interview as a process, both of which were insightful. Additionally, it was recognised from the onset that adopting an approach to career histories within the first half of the interview which is adopted from life history interviews, could potentially be a challenging technique. Eliciting stories requires both and a willingness on the part of the interviewee to engage in this method and particular skills from the interviewer to encourage participation. Therefore, it was important to ensure that if the first section of the interview did not unfold as envisaged the interview schedule to be adopted within the latter portion would potentially ensure each interview contributed to the empirical study. Fortunately, interviewees demonstrated clear engagement with the interview design and the career stories were readily forthcoming, and both rich and extensive in nature.

This two-stage approach within a single interview facilitated the production of an uninterrupted narrative as the pivotal focus of analysis, supplemented by responses to additional prompts and questions once the initial narrative was concluded. This replicated the design of a biographic narrative interview outlined by Wengraf (2000).